potential PPC Amiga REAL CHEAP

[Karlos]

Piru wrote:
My final contribution to this invaluable thread:

sums it up pretty good

Ooooooh, tactless.... *wince*

[Karlos]

koaftder wrote:
I may be one of the strange ones here. I'd like to see a hardcore blend of c and basic. Ive many times set out to impliment this, but never finished up on it. Why not have a basic that has pointers as a datatype?

Blitz basic isn't too far off. It certainly has structures, lists etc. It also has a pointer type if I am not mistaken.

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:
@Waccoon

My poorly formatted code was because I didn't specify it as code so the tabs weren't processed by this PHP-based (C for the web) forum.

Code: [Select]

  char keystroke = getch();
   switch( keystroke ) {
     case 'a':
     case 'b':
     case 'c':
     case 'd':
       KeyABCDPressed();
       break;
     case 'e':
       KeyEPressed();
       break;
     default:
       UnknownKeyPressed();
       break;
   }            


vs. VB's

Code: [Select]

Dim keystroke as char = getch()
Select Case keystoke
    Case "a", "b", "c", "d"
        KeyABCDPressed()
    Case "e"
        KeyEPressed()
    Case Else
        UnknownKeyPressed()
End Select

Personally I don't think the VB one is easier to read. For a start, why can't  it just be "keystroke as char = getch()" and why does it have to be "Select Case keystroke" and not just "Select keystroke" ? Why "Case Else" instead of just "Else" ? That would be even easier, wouldn't it? Then you think, "why do I even need this 'as' in keystroke as char = getch()?", when "char keystroke = getch()" is even easier still...

The only nice thing I see in the VB script is the case range concatenation, which saves space. Oh but wait, it was exactly the space saving leading to compressed up gnarly looking code on terminals you were lambasting C for, wasn't it? :-P

[Karlos]

Ok, after pages of this crap I am going to be as fair and objective as I can.

As a development IDE, Visual Studio is a good product. As an extension, ".net" is pretty much meaningless as can be seen in the last two posts.

As a language, VB, like all BASIC derivatives, is a pretty much an ugly pile of sh*te that exists soley for less experienced developers to work in all the time, or for more experienced developers to work in when they have no time, or when the latter class of developers are forced to share development with the former class of developers (lowest common denominator rule).

Absolutely every argument I've seen so far regarding VB's superiority *as a language* over C/C++ et al has done nothing but absolutely cement this viewpoint. I have seen just one syntactical feature so far presented (case range concatenation) which can be demonstrated to be an advantage and ironically it must be rejected on the very grounds presented by our erstwhile VB advocate. That is to say, by making the VB source more compact (requiring less lines etc) it does one of the very things he uses in the case against C like languages.

The prosecution rests.

:-P

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

A better counter-point would be to show me something that can only be done in C and not VB.Net.

I dunno, how many OS kernels and core services are written in VB.net compared to those in C?

Or how about writing a graphics API for cross platform delivery?

Or how about simply writing stuff for a platform other than Windows?

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

What I want to know is why "C programmers" think they are smarter instead of realizing that either they have ALOT more patience or are suckers for punishment?  When will they get over that?

I'd like to know why you think that is a valid observation? There is nothing hard about developing software in C/C++. If you can develop in one high level language, you can do it in just about any. It's just a matter of learning the syntax, support services you require and any new paradigms. C/C++ come with an unrivalled level of support. You can find example source and library code for just about anything.

On the contrary, writing something in a language that is not remotely supported outside of MS domain to be the thankless task, unless of course that is as broad as your imagination goes.

[Karlos]

Clash of the titans



lou: Bjarne, it's time to think of something new, you know.

bjarne: Yeah, I know.

lou: Listen Bjarne, I think that you should stop this C++ cuffuffle! VB is the one for you to go on with..

bjarne: I don't want it!

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

Yes, PureBASIC is interesting, but unless my boss pays me to code in it, I won't be.  It's simple economics that some people here will never understand until they get older.

LOL! I get paid to develop stuff in PHP/MySQL/Javascript/Java etc. That doesn't mean I go around extolling how great they are over all other languages and making brash claims that they can do anything worth doing. I recognise the difference between tools suitable for different purposes.

VB has its place. It's a handy RAD tool for quick and dirty programs. C has its place too, it's a massively portable language suitable for all levels of development.

Syntactically there is absolutely next to nothing that can touch C. I'm sorry you can't appreciate that but if you look at how many languages have adopted C's style of syntax over BASIC, you will be forced to conclude that they all just are too snobby and up themselves for your keyword rich language :-D

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

Karlos wrote:

keyword rich language :-D

So because a language replaces things like for(){} with For/Next, it's keyword rich?  ...and a compiler almost cares...

The defense rests...

Hey, I didn't make C syntax more popular and easier to read than basic syntax. It just is :-P

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

mdma wrote:

So you prefer it. The whole point that everyone else is trying to make to you is that just because you prefer it, that doesn't make it superior to everything else.

No, everyone including you are saying that I have an inferior intellect for preferring it.  The difference being I never cared what anyone else preferred...not one iota...

Now you are getting a little paranoid. Nobody has said you are intellectually inferior for preferring VB but people have questioned your judgement as to why you didn't like C/C++. Or rather why you claim "suck ass" and are "fugly", why we should recognise VB's superiority and then give some of the least well reasoned arguments I have read that aren't even consistent across several posts.

You also made yourself look silly in the way you criticised not only C/C++ as languages but those who prefer it over Basic syntax and their attitudes, or that C/C++ is somehow a dead or stagnant language not used by more than a handful of geeks and eschewed by the buisness world, or by throwing down the "what can C do that VB cant?" gauntlet when it is patently obvious that C's scope is wider than VB.net and so there are whole avenues of development for which C can be used and VB.net can't. Wether or not that's different "in 40 years time" is irrelavent today.

C has already stood that particular test of time, given birth to several syntactically related languages and wether you like it or not is here to stay.

In the end, the only person inferring you are a bit silly is yourself because you cannot separate your preference for a language over another from its inherent capabilities overall. You like it, therefore it is better. You don't like C, therefore it is inferior, starting right back at your first post on the matter. Hardly well reasoned.

As for the rest of the people, we recognise tools that are good for particular jobs. VB is good as a RAD tool under windows etc, but it is not the best RAD tool available. Java is a good choice for web / mobile devices, but it is not the best tool for large scale application development (even though the language itself is quite nice). PHP is a good choice for rapid development of server pages and other scripted applications but it's not so good for making desktop applications. Asm is good for low level embedded work / driver layer and performance critical code but it is not so good for full scale application development.

There is one language that is actually quite useable for all these purposes and more. And it isn't VB. It's C.

[Karlos]

koaftder wrote:
with all the flack buzzing around this thread you'd think somebody dropped a mohammad cartoon in here.

Well, some VB loving infidel did dare to ridicule the good name of C, after all :-D

[Karlos]

Don't be, all serious developers know C++ is "da bomb!" :-P

-edit-



:-P

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

Karlos wrote:

koaftder wrote:
with all the flack buzzing around this thread you'd think somebody dropped a mohammad cartoon in here.

Well, some VB loving infidel did dare to ridicule the good name of C, after all :-D

Actually, other that pat each other in the back, none of you has changed my preference or opinion.

Come on man, don't take it so personally :lol:

Nobody is trying to convert you; just simply point out that none of the reasons you have given make VB.net a better language than any other and none of the reasons you have given make C a worse one than any other. Everybody knows you like VB.net just as you know many of us prefer C etc.

Regardless, if you want to develop serious software for OS4, C/C++ are your only real choices anyway. There was an AMOS project, I don't know where that is up to :-)

[Karlos]

lou_dias wrote:

Does that please you?

So much so that I fear I may need to find a sock...